Opinion
No. 3D20-0409
03-30-2022
Roman RAVELO, Appellant, v. Maria D. PAYRET, Appellee.
Law Offices of Mark A. Dienstag, and Mark A. Dienstag, Law Offices of Karen J. Haas, and Karen J. Haas, for appellant. Law Offices of Solangel Verde, and Solangel Verde, Law Offices of Kevin W. Nates, and Kevin W. Nates, for appellee.
Law Offices of Mark A. Dienstag, and Mark A. Dienstag, Law Offices of Karen J. Haas, and Karen J. Haas, for appellant.
Law Offices of Solangel Verde, and Solangel Verde, Law Offices of Kevin W. Nates, and Kevin W. Nates, for appellee.
Before SCALES, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Roman Ravelo, challenges an order denying his rule 1.540(b) motion in the underlying partition suit. Concluding the motion sets forth "a colorable entitlement to relief," we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether relief should be granted. See Oshana v. Lopiano, 314 So. 3d 311, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (footnote omitted) ("Although we review a trial court's ruling on motions for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion, once a party moving under rule 1.540(b) raises a colorable entitlement to relief exercising that discretion requires holding an evidentiary hearing."); Smith v. Smith, 903 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ("A motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief.").
Reversed and remanded.